Re: Dimesional Theory (finally)!
Posted by Pasti on Mar 30, 2004 at 00:04
(67.69.240.42)Re: Dimesional Theory (finally)! (Xed)
"There are 3 known physical dimensions. I propose that there are many more dimensions then just these three."
OK,but before making any further considerations, what is the definition of what you call dimensions,physical dimensions?If you do not define them appropriately,your entire theory is a word(s) game.
"Physical: The obvious one. Includes the 3 dimensions of space, and the texture of an object (which is a derivative of the three dimensions). This category is the most straightforward of the two."
How do you define what you call "texture"?Elementary solid state physics can already describe all physical properties of matter based on only the 3 dimensions that you call physical, without the need of any additional concept as texture.
"However, there is a twist. Sound is also a physical dimension, because sound is really just vibrations, or even more simply put, influxes in the physical dimensions of air."
Again, what is a dimension?Because waves(vibrations) too can be described using only your 3 physical dimensions.Sound vibrations are just very particular motions of the air in those 3 dimensions.
"This also includes color (because the makeup of an object determines color) and believe it or not, taste. The physical configuration of molecules in an object determines its taste."
It is not the physical cofiguration that determines taste.That is if we both have the same understanding of the term configuration.Usually, configuration refers to the spatial properties of a molecule, not to its constituency.And taste is determined exactly by the latter,by the chemical constituency.
"Non-Physical: It’s very hard to determine something that is nonphysical. Even emotions are physical (hormones). However, there is one non-physical dimension. Time. Time bounds all objects (as all dimensions do) but does not consist of anything physical."Length does not consist of anything physical either, you don't need a physical object to define length.
And time,contrary to spatial dimensions,has a much tighter relation with physical phenomena.Think about equilibrium, non-equilibrium and entropy.
But what makes both spatial and temporal dimensions alike(in a manner of speaking of course) is the fact that both are observationally accessible, they can be measured."It can be argued that “time is dependent on the sun” but this can be easily dismissed by saying “time would go on without days or years or units of time."
No, you cannot make the argument that time is dependent on the Sun.The motion of the Sun is just a convenient way to measure time.
The interesting question is the following:why do you assume that "time goes on" and not that you go along in time?Using this view,all 4 dimensions become qualitatively identical (less metric considerations)."Just like dimensions would exist even if there weren’t any units of space, or something that can make the dimension comprehendible."
My point exactly.According to this view,space and time are qualitatively the same,and they can be measured, let's say(euphemistically),in the same way.So why are spatial dimensions physical and time is not?